Women Priests.

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "unambiguously". The role of women in leadership is pretty clear.

Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry
Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership in many roles. The following are striking examples: Miriam was a prophet to Israel during the Exodus, alongside her brothers Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20). Deborah, both a prophet and a judge, directed Barak to lead the army of Israel into successful combat against Israel’s oppressors (Judges 4 to 5). Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chronicles 34:22–28).

The New Testament also shows that women filled important ministry roles in the Early Church. Tabitha (Dorcas) initiated an effective benevolence ministry (Acts 9:36). Philip’s four unmarried daughters were recognized prophets (Acts 21:8,9). Paul singled out two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as “women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers” (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul’s exemplary “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3,4). In Romans 16, Paul greets numerous ministry colleagues, a large number of them women. In these greetings, the word Paul uses to speak of the work (kopiao), or labor, of Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Romans 16:6,12) is one he uses extensively for the labor of ministry (1 Corinthians 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17).

Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, translation biases have often obscured Phoebe’s position of leadership, calling her a “servant” (NIV, NASB, ESV). Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul regularly used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated “deacon” or “minister.” Though some translators have chosen the word deaconess (e.g., RSV, because Phoebe was female), the Greek diakonos is a masculine noun. Therefore, it seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church and the proper translation for Phoebe’s role is “deacon” (TNIV, NLT, NRSV) or “minister.”

Moreover, a number of translations reflect similar biases by referring to Phoebe as having been a “great help” (NIV) or “helper” (NASB) of many, including Paul himself (Romans 16:2). The Greek term here is prostatis, better translated by the NRSV as “benefactor” with its overtones of equality and leadership.

Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). Beginning in the thirteenth century, a number of scholars and translators masculinized her name to Junias, apparently unwilling to admit that there was a female apostle. However, the name Junia is found more than 250 times in Rome alone, while the masculine form Junias is unknown in any Greco-Roman source. Paul clearly was a strong advocate of women in ministry.

These instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited number of women with scripturally commended leadership roles affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.

Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | The Role of Women in Ministry

So Junia was a presbyter. This is your claim?
 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Women priests might quell the pedophile problem........ Just a thought.

They would certainly reduce it, just from a pure statistical perspective. And they would be better advocates for the victims of rape and abuse. As it is now, when a girl is raped or abused by a male leader in church, she typically goes alone, to face a room full of men. She is immediately at a disadvantage, and her abusers at an advantage in that scenario. It ought not be.
 
Upvote 0

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They would certainly reduce it, just from a pure statistical perspective. And they would be better advocates for the victims of rape and abuse. As it is now, when a girl is raped or abused by a male leader in church, she typically goes alone, to face a room full of men. She is immediately at a disadvantage, and her abusers at an advantage in that scenario. It ought not be.

I'll say as a grown mature woman that facing a panel of just men on intimate matters of pain is highly disadvantaging. My career is in sales negotiations at the C-Level on multi million dollar deals - most with men, so of all women I should have been more comfortable in that setting, but it was really just awful. I declined to participate in the 2nd round and told the pastor was free to speak on my behalf - without me there.

I can't imagine a girl or even a young woman facing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gregorikos
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So Junia was a presbyter. This is your claim?
Junia was not a presbyter. Junia was in a leadership position of some sort.

We cannot translate that as meaning that, whatever that role was, it must certainly be as a presbyter.
 
Upvote 0

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I suspect women would be more loyal than men, women are maternal, men are inclined to be nocturnal...

Before continuing I want to say, nothing of this should be taken to mean that I think women should not be appreciated, or that women are somehow less valuable. I think women seem to be generally different than men, but I don’t think it means they are then somehow less valuable. I think difference is not a problem and should not be a problem and all people don’t have to be the same to be appreciated and loved.

And now, about the differences. There is actually a study about this subject, which indicates that women cause the Church to change.

This article focuses on female clergy as potential agents of change in the Church. I argue that the adoption of female clergy is one of the main factors that cause the Church to change its practices, policies and theological orientation.
Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?

Maybe it could be said it is not bad, but, if the goal would be to conserve something, women don’t seem to do that, according to that study, and therefore it would be mistake to place them on position where the goal would be to preserve. And if one wants to change things, it would be beneficial to choose women, which I think is intentionally happening.

But, I think this is not necessary matter to be argued. It is in no way useful and you don’t have to agree with me in this. I just say that in my experience women more easily reject the teachings in the Bible. Women tend to think more about what other people think and feel, which is one reason why I think they more easily reject God. The teaching in the Bible can be offensive to some, and to not offend anyone, it is tempting to reject what was said and the truth, to not cause conflict, to please everyone.

In scripture, women have a special place, as though they are not automatically under judgement, where as men are.

I don’t mean with this that women are not as valuable, or good, or shouldn’t be appreciated. This means they are different and I think difference is not bad thing. Not all people are good at the same things, for example, I can’t run as fast as some others, it does not mean that then I am not good at all, or that my life would have no value. People don’t have to be good in everything to be valuable, loved, appreciated. I think big mistake in modern world is that truth can’t be accepted and that all must be considered equally good in everything, even though they are not. People are different and it is ridiculous that equality people don’t seem to be able to accept that. Essentially they themselves think not all people can be appreciated, if they are not the same as everyone else.

But, I would like to know, what scripture you mean?
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
This article focuses on female clergy as potential agents of change in the Church. I argue that the adoption of female clergy is one of the main factors that cause the Church to change its practices, policies and theological orientation.
Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?

I asked a question in another thread about Churches which adopted female priests or pastors. Whether or not that tends to lead to liberalism. It's good to know that my suspicions are intuitively correct.

Women cause a Church to be more liberal both politically and theologically. Just makes me think that women shouldn't be in the clergy even more so if the goal is to preserve what Christianity is, rather than change it according to modern liberal norms.
 
Upvote 0

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just say that in my experience women more easily reject the teachings in the Bible. Women tend to think more about what other people think and feel, which is one reason why I think they more easily reject God. The teaching in the Bible can be offensive to some, and to not offend anyone, it is tempting to reject what was said and the truth, to not cause conflict, to please everyone.

I appreciate your humble tone. I have also read that opinion recently while studying some CBMW type literature, which offered a much less humble tone than you did. So, thank you for that.

However, your supposition isn't Scriptural, so I think it's dangerous to marginalize people based on an opinion like this. I could point out many exceptions to your suggestion, and could also provide a list of women that co-labored with Paul and he didn't have these concerns about them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I disagree. If the office overtakes the individual, then I think it becomes about status. But as long as the person matters in the relationships signified, it is less about status.
I'm speaking purely with regard to what the dress symbolizes. There is a ministerial authority that must remain associated with the office and not the occupier of the office that ministerial dress will convey. A standing-in-moses seat sort of authority.



And yet any teacher will tell you that the authority of the role is important in the classroom. Sure, we can argue endlessly about tweaking the tasks and functions of particular offices, but that doesn't negate the fact that they are given for the good of the Church.
Yes, and it's far too easy to overstep from official authority to relational authority because of that necessary authority. Designating teachers, rather than trusting any willing to teach and observing their teaching, creates a class distinction



I think it's very clear that we're working with distinguishable offices well before that point. There was a degree of diversity and flexibility, definitely, but we can't plausibly argue for an office-less first century church.
Sort of, but not in the sense that they are today. The offices rotated and each city congregation designated how their offices were filled as a congregation. This was especially enforced through the likelihood of martyrdom for anyone occupying an office in most places.



Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. Even in house churches, someone presided, someone taught, there were elders and so on.
No, it's completely relevant because we can't compare modern worship with what happened in those house churches. You assume that someone presided and taught and all of that, but the data is rather thin. The pastoral letters are often challenged because they are argued to show a bit of ecclesiastical development that the data from the nascent church doesn't seem to hold up with.



Then why did you raise the handling of communal resources?
Because the handling of communal resources was the primary duty of NT elders. Timothy's role, for instance, was primarily centered on the distributions to widows. He was not specially charged with defending the faith, that charge goes to all Christians.



Some people might make that inference (of "extra holiness), but it is not directly implied and it is an incorrect inference. I am not extra-holy compared to the people in my congregation, in any way.
It may be an incorrect inference, but it's a natural inference if there are holy rites reserved to a designated class. It implies that either through training or through natural dispositions there is something special about the one allowed to administer those rites.



The church is not merely an institution, but it has an unavoidable institutional aspect. And I would argue that a well-run church doe snot deny anyone the right to speak, but it does create order in appointing particular people to speak on its behalf.

Think about it; if you ran a business (by way of analogy, not to say that the church is a business), would you want any random employee deciding what tasks they shall undertake, and what they shall do (ostensibly on your behalf), at random, without seeking your input or agreement? Why should the church not want to make sure that those who hold particular roles in it agree to be accountable to the church in what they do and say?
That's a terrible analogy because we're not "running" the church. Christ is responsible for the church, and Christ alone. Human structures of ordination are nothing more than a human institution which is exactly why they're so rife for abuse.

Role distinction is not the same as class distinction. Not least because what role a person occupies can change, but generally class is fixed.
I agree, but the changing roles has to be more than simply hypothetical or else it bleeds into a class distinction. A lot of the institutions are based on good impulses, such as desire to preserve the message, but such institutions are going to attract exactly the wrong sort and create political divisions within the body especially as the authority becomes more heavily vested. Of course none of this is black and white, there are good and necessary reasons for church authority but vesting such authority in individuals is a major hazard.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
However, your supposition isn't Scriptural, so I think it's dangerous to marginalize people based on an opinion like this. I could point out many exceptions to your suggestion, and could also provide a list of women that co-labored with Paul and he didn't have these concerns about them.

There were plenty of women who helped plenty of men throughout all centuries of the Church. No one is denying them their place in helping and even leadership positions. What we deny is the idea that women can be pastors or priests.

If I were to use the same sorts of arguments that liberals use to defend their position I would have to regard Saint Macrina as a presbyter because of her impact on the lives of her brothers. Or what about the deaconess Olympias whom John Chrysostom regarded as a friend and relied on for aid? Or what about the women who helped Saint Jerome and on whom he also relied? Should all these women be regarded as examples of female clergy despite them not being so?

Men should rely on women for help. There's nothing wrong with that. A Church probably wouldn't function nearly as well without them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I suspect women would be more loyal than men, women are maternal, men are inclined to be nocturnal.

If you're parenting an infant, being maternal and being nocturnal kinda go together. :)
 
Upvote 0

Redwingfan9

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,629
1,532
Midwest
✟70,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Earlier in this thread I showed a challenge in the 1 Tim 2:12 translation. Could you please comment on that? Post #56.
Your objection does not deal with the operative phrase, which bars women from teaching or having authority over a man in the church. That means they cannot preach and cannot hold a position of leadership in the church (ie they may not be elders or decons). I might even agree with your statement that the greek word means quiet rather than silence. In fact, we know that women have sung psalms as part of congregational singing from day 1 of the church, so clearly silence doesn't mean silent at all times.
 
Upvote 0

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your objection does not deal with the operative phrase, which bars women from teaching or having authority over a man in the church. That means they cannot preach and cannot hold a position of leadership in the church (ie they may not be elders or decons). I might even agree with your statement that the greek word means quiet rather than silence. In fact, we know that women have sung psalms as part of congregational singing from day 1 of the church, so clearly silence doesn't mean silent at all times.

Hi Redwing,

Thank you for your cordial reply. :)

For the sake of argument, assuming we both agree that Paul wrote a word better described as "peaceable", we can move to the next objection to the traditional translation, which is the word often translated as exercising authority, also in v. 12.

The word Paul used in that verse that has been translated as "authority" is not found anywhere else in the Bible, and he only used it that once. He used a different word all the other times he talks about authority. Therefore, Biblical scholars have had to research other sources for comparative uses of the word, and their best estimation is that it means a violent overtaking, even with undertones of murderous actions. Of all of the translations, perhaps the KJV is the closest with "usurp", but it still seems to understate the scope of the behavior.

Strongs defines it as:
831 authentéō (from 846 /autós, "self" and entea, "arms, armor") – properly, to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed (acting without submission).

a. according to earlier usage, one who with his own hand kills either others or himself.

b. in later Greek writings one who does a thing himself the author" (τῆς πράξεως, Polybius 23, 14, 2, etc.); one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to αὐτοκράτωρ an absolute master; cf. Lobeck ad Phryn., p. 120 (also as above; cf. Winers Grammar, § 2, 1 c.)); to govern one, exercise dominion over one: τινς, 1 Timothy 2:12.​

Would you agree that neither men OR women should grab onto or usurp authority in that manner?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟481,862.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
This is such a hard issue.

I dont think woman priests/ministers are a judgement on men.

However I also dont believe scripture allows for it, if someone can categorically explain Pauls statements on the matter, while remaining true to scripture, I will be gladly educated.

If scripture is eternal truth, and scripture cannot be broken, then while I find it harsh and hard, but prohibited. As modern Christians we dont like uncomfortable things like absolute truth, because its offensive and uncomfortable, we are slowly watering down the faith in so many ways, but on the point of absolute truth and abiding in it no matter how inconvenient, I take comfort from the scene where Jesus has just lost the bulk of his followers after a statement on communion which brings about the response "this is a hard teaching- who can accept it" and says to his 12, will you also go? and Peter says "where else will we go, no one else has the words of life".

Its not a salvation point, but if scripture is true and to be relied up, then it speaks for itself.

If its to be ignored as redundant, then the whole thing is best in the fireplace...and "we amongst all men are to be most pitied".


It is difficult, but at a superficial level not very important; but at a deeper level the enemy is up to mischief, making God more remote and irrelevant. If there is a sin it is the men who have sinned; if the women are there they need to do a good job lifting up Christ and not promoting women. The ship is sinking, it's every man and women for our selves, a different approach is required, we cannot depend on institutions.
 
Upvote 0

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟481,862.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Well if He was writing under the INspiration of the Spirit then we should accept His writings as coming from God!

Thgough we have abolished slavery (at least superficially) there is no edict against it! You will not find one verse that shows God condemns slavery. Peter also told slaves to serve their masters well. If we jettison these as not being inspired, then we have a real problem when others wish to jettison things that we hold to be divinely inspired. We have lost most of the solid ground to defend one part of the Bible if we rejejct other parts of the bible.


We can bring this into topic if we transliterate the topic to "The magnitude of micro deceptions in the enemies attack".

"Inspiration of the spirit", where does that come from? There is a verse, from Paul or Peter, I am not sure, "All scripture is inspired by God", but this is further qualified by, "the prophets of old did not make it up, they did not interpret it from scripture, but they received it directly from God". Now, how do we know this verse is not made up; by testing it against the OT, the two witnesses must agree. Paul's statements should be tested against the OT; first off Paul's statements on circumcision fail the test.

Regarding slavery, the word in the Bible simply means employment, There is a place in the OT where God condemns the abduction of people for forced labour that I have come across recently.

Paul is the prophet who testifies of Himself; that doesn't mean that he is not a servant of God, the beast of Revelation is a servant of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟481,862.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Before continuing I want to say, nothing of this should be taken to mean that I think women should not be appreciated, or that women are somehow less valuable. I think women seem to be generally different than men, but I don’t think it means they are then somehow less valuable. I think difference is not a problem and should not be a problem and all people don’t have to be the same to be appreciated and loved.

And now, about the differences. There is actually a study about this subject, which indicates that women cause the Church to change.

This article focuses on female clergy as potential agents of change in the Church. I argue that the adoption of female clergy is one of the main factors that cause the Church to change its practices, policies and theological orientation.
Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?

Maybe it could be said it is not bad, but, if the goal would be to conserve something, women don’t seem to do that, according to that study, and therefore it would be mistake to place them on position where the goal would be to preserve. And if one wants to change things, it would be beneficial to choose women, which I think is intentionally happening.

But, I think this is not necessary matter to be argued. It is in no way useful and you don’t have to agree with me in this. I just say that in my experience women more easily reject the teachings in the Bible. Women tend to think more about what other people think and feel, which is one reason why I think they more easily reject God. The teaching in the Bible can be offensive to some, and to not offend anyone, it is tempting to reject what was said and the truth, to not cause conflict, to please everyone.



I don’t mean with this that women are not as valuable, or good, or shouldn’t be appreciated. This means they are different and I think difference is not bad thing. Not all people are good at the same things, for example, I can’t run as fast as some others, it does not mean that then I am not good at all, or that my life would have no value. People don’t have to be good in everything to be valuable, loved, appreciated. I think big mistake in modern world is that truth can’t be accepted and that all must be considered equally good in everything, even though they are not. People are different and it is ridiculous that equality people don’t seem to be able to accept that. Essentially they themselves think not all people can be appreciated, if they are not the same as everyone else.

But, I would like to know, what scripture you mean?

Where we are today; the world is being turned upside down, people are calling evil good; now there is sin of which we repent and then there is casting the Law into the trash can which is an assault against God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1213
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,109
19,004
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,107.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm speaking purely with regard to what the dress symbolizes. There is a ministerial authority that must remain associated with the office and not the occupier of the office that ministerial dress will convey. A standing-in-moses seat sort of authority.

This assumes that "authority" is the operative issue, and that's not always the case at all.

Designating teachers, rather than trusting any willing to teach and observing their teaching, creates a class distinction

I don't know how things are where you are, but where I am, this wouldn't even be legal under secular law. Here, anyone undertaking leadership roles must go through a screening, recruitment and training process; must have police and working with children checks, and must be duly authorised. I can't just let anyone willing teach. We've learned the hard way that that leaves us far to open to all sorts of abuses.

The offices rotated and each city congregation designated how their offices were filled as a congregation.

I'm not convinced by this claim, but think it's fairly marginal to our discussion.

Because the handling of communal resources was the primary duty of NT elders. Timothy's role, for instance, was primarily centered on the distributions to widows.

I think you're confusing elders with deacons, there. It was deacons who were to focus on distributions to widows, so that the elders could focus on prayer and teaching.

It may be an incorrect inference, but it's a natural inference if there are holy rites reserved to a designated class. It implies that either through training or through natural dispositions there is something special about the one allowed to administer those rites.

Then the onus is on us to make our teaching clearer that this is not so.

That's a terrible analogy because we're not "running" the church. Christ is responsible for the church, and Christ alone.

But on a day-to-day level, humans on the ground have to make all kinds of decisions. The church needs to know that the people making key decisions are trustworthy and have agreed to operate within the church's limits and norms.

but vesting such authority in individuals is a major hazard.

Unless you're willing to put every decision through a group decision-making process (which is highly impractical), it's probably necessary, though.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This assumes that "authority" is the operative issue, and that's not always the case at all.
When it comes to class distinctions, authority is the issue.



I don't know how things are where you are, but where I am, this wouldn't even be legal under secular law. Here, anyone undertaking leadership roles must go through a screening, recruitment and training process; must have police and working with children checks, and must be duly authorised. I can't just let anyone willing teach. We've learned the hard way that that leaves us far to open to all sorts of abuses.
Teaching children requires secular checks and clearances, and given the pliability of the young it seems reasonable to rely on established teachers within the congregation, but that doesn't require ordination to a special function. If someone wants to come before the body and preach, though, there need be no barriers beyond the simple reproach of teaching incorrectly.



I'm not convinced by this claim, but think it's fairly marginal to our discussion.
Fair enough.



I think you're confusing elders with deacons, there. It was deacons who were to focus on distributions to widows, so that the elders could focus on prayer and teaching.
No, its more a matter of recognizing the first official office of the church was the deacons established in Acts 6-7. Though making normative decisions based on the Jerusalem church alone is part of the issue, as it was rather unique in its structure among early churches.



Then the onus is on us to make our teaching clearer that this is not so.
Perhaps, but if the practice itself is what is giving the false impression and there is no practical reason for the exclusivity it seems keeping the rites exclusive is the issue, rather than a failure to teach.





But on a day-to-day level, humans on the ground have to make all kinds of decisions. The church needs to know that the people making key decisions are trustworthy and have agreed to operate within the church's limits and norms.
Sure, and giving people operational decision making powers for oganizational purposes isn't really an issue. Secular administration duties don't bring about images of holiness in the way that exclusivity with sacred rites do. And the very idea that there is an order/class of ordained people who are allowed those sacred rites gives the air of special holiness for that group.


Unless you're willing to put every decision through a group decision-making process (which is highly impractical), it's probably necessary, though.
Again, this isn't a matter of organizational functions as secular administration as much as it is the idea of having ordained people who are in-tune with Christ enough to be his exclusive voice on holy matters gives the appearance of class distinction, at the very least.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,109
19,004
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,107.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
When it comes to class distinctions, authority is the issue.

But what I am trying to point out - as someone who actually wears a clerical collar, and makes day-by-day decisions about when and how it is appropriate to do so - is that the actual meanings conveyed and reasons for wearing it might have nothing to do with either authority or class distinctions.

Teaching children requires secular checks and clearances, and given the pliability of the young it seems reasonable to rely on established teachers within the congregation, but that doesn't require ordination to a special function. If someone wants to come before the body and preach, though, there need be no barriers beyond the simple reproach of teaching incorrectly.

No. What I said in my previous post applies - by secular law - to those who teach adults as well. Anyone who exercises a leadership position, or position of authority or perceived authority in the church, is required to have such checks and clearances.

Now it doesn't have to be ordination - after all, my church has a long-established practice of lay preachers - but it does require authorisation and licensing to that role.

Perhaps, but if the practice itself is what is giving the false impression and there is no practical reason for the exclusivity it seems keeping the rites exclusive is the issue, rather than a failure to teach.

But there are practical reasons for having particular tasks assigned to particular roles. Again, we could quibble endlessly about the detail of this or that task, but for the sake of good order and governance it's not just a free-for-all.

Perhaps, but if the practice itself is what is Sure, and giving people operational decision making powers for oganizational purposes isn't really an issue. Secular administration duties don't bring about images of holiness in the way that exclusivity with sacred rites do. And the very idea that there is an order/class of ordained people who are allowed those sacred rites gives the air of special holiness for that group.

So would you then, be happy with a church whose structures remained unchanged except for allowing everyone (without exception?) to hear formal confessions and preside at the Eucharist? Do you really think that would a) work well, and b) solve the problems you raise? Because I don't. I know a good many people who would be a disaster as a confessor.

it is the idea of having ordained people who are in-tune with Christ enough to be his exclusive voice on holy matters

But this is a straw man. This is not what ordination is. It is not how it is understood. And to attack the idea of orders on this basis is completely misplaced.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0